Three generations of the one family have been wiped out. Two grandparents, their daughter and her four children aged 8 to 13.

Katrina Miles with her four children.Credit:Facebook

When gun law reform is discussed, weapon enthusiasts and the gun lobby argue that only legal gun-owners will be affected by changes that seek to enhance safety or restrict gun use.

However, all legal owners of firearms - such as farmers or weekend pig-hunters - are responsible, legal gun owners until they become irresponsible and kill spouses, former partners, children and others.

Advertisement

They are responsible until they have a breakdown, suffer depression, get drunk or take ice. It is mostly their own families who are the victims.

Here are some examples of recent gun deaths in rural Australia.

In 2014 in Lockhart, NSW, farmer Geoff Hunt shot dead his wife and three children aged 10, 8 and 6 before killing himself. Mr Hunt was described as a "kind-hearted" man by his wife’s sister. His suicide note simply stated "I’m struggling, I’m struggling".

In Logan in Central Victoria in 2014, Ian Jamieson, 63, shot dead three neighbours including a husband and wife aged 78 and 75. The "responsible" killer owned several firearms, including a 12-gauge shotgun. All were registered and legally owned. He is appealing against his murder conviction.

In 2016 in Port Lincoln, South Australia, Damien Little, 34, shot dead his two children, Koda, 4 and Hunter, nine months. His wife and childhood sweetheart, Melissa, 29, who was not harmed, described him as a "loving husband".

The horror at Margaret River, the worst since Port Arthur in 1996, must be a game-changer. One day a responsible gun owner is using his weapon to kill vermin. The next it could be his family.

Almost all people who have not been in trouble with the law or who have not had a mental health episode known to authorities are deemed "fit and proper" to hold a gun license. Their mental health episode - or an argument with their partner or neighbour - may come the following week or month. They are then a person with mental stress, anger or depression with a high-powered killing machine.

Urban gun owners should not be allowed to hold their weapons in houses in the suburbs and the sale quantity of ammunition should be highly regulated. Guns should be held in a secure lock-up in a police station and the gun enthusiast must provide two weeks’ notice of intention to use the gun, with details of where and with whom they will go with the weapon. They would pick up the weapon on the morning it is required and return it within seven days. No non-farmer should be allowed to own more than one firearm.

If, after returning from a hunting trip and handing in their gun, the gun owner takes ice, has a fight with a partner or a depressive episode, their gun will not be available to be used to murder in anger, depression or delusion.

In rural communities, as soon as someone is no longer an active farmer, because they have retired, are unable to work due to a disability or have sold the farm and live in town, they should not be allowed to own weapons unless they change their ownership status to that of a registered hunter. The same storage conditions for this non-active farmer would then apply.

For active farmers who need guns for vermin and other reasons, the security of gun holdings should be legislatively controlled. Thousands of guns are targeted for theft from rural or outer-urban properties every year by criminal gangs. 27,000 guns were stolen between 2007 and 2017. This is a horrific figure.

Flowers have been left outside the Osmington property where the bodies of seven people were found. Credit:James Brickwood

Guns on properties should be locked in a mini bank-style safe with a 12-hour time-delay. There would have to be two separate keys or combinations that would require two people to open. If there is an issue with a sick or injured animal, sensible policy that involves the local police, vets and others can be put in place to deal with this.

If the farmer has a depressive episode but is not able to access his gun, he (it is almost always men) would not be able to use the weapon for mass murder. Such a law possibly would have saved those murdered in Margaret River.

These ideas (and others) – refined and improved by experts, the police and rural communities – must be examined by the relevant federal and state ministers.

It is not good enough to do nothing. Four little children have had their lives cruelly ended.

Changing laws around gun ownership by urban and city gun-owners and gun security for farmers will not stop people who need guns, including farmers and club-based sporting-shooters, from owning and having regular access to them. It will not stop city-based hunters from going on a hunting trip a few times a year.

However, sensible changes will stop or markedly reduce many "fit and proper" and "responsible" gun owners from carrying out mass murder of their families or others due to mental health changes, drug use, depression, psychosis or being upset at a neighbour. It will also reduce the ridiculous rates of gun theft.

____________

Phil West is a former committee member of Gun Control Australia.

Support is available for those who may be distressed by phoning Lifeline 13 11 14; Mensline 1300 789 978; Kids Helpline 1800 551 800; beyondblue 1300 224 636.